Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Binding: VHS Tape
EAN: 9786301338059
Format: Closed-captioned
ISBN: 6301338057
Label: Universal Studios
Manufacturer: Universal Studios
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Universal Studios
Release Date: 1992-03-01
Studio: Universal Studios
Theatrical Release Date: 1988-08-12

It isn't difficult to imagine why this 1988 retelling of the Crucifixion story was picketed vociferously upon release--this Jesus bears little resemblance to the classical Christ, who was not, upon careful review of the Gospels, ever reported to have had sex with Barbara Hershey. Heavily informed by Gnostic reinterpretations of the Passion, The Last Temptation of Christ (based rather strictly on Nikos Kazantzakis's novel of the same name) is surely worth seeing for the controversy and blasphemous content alone, but it's difficult to find in skittish chain video stores. But the "last temptation" of the title is nothing overtly naughty--rather, it's the seduction of the commonplace; the desire to forgo following a "calling" in exchange for domestic security. Willem Dafoe interprets Jesus as spacy, indecisive, and none too charismatic (though maybe that's just Dafoe himself), but his Sermon on the Mount is radiant with visionary fire; a bit less successful is method actor Harvey Keitel, who gives the internally conflicted Judas a noticeable Brooklyn accent, and doesn't bring much imagination to a role that demands a revisionist's approach. Despite director Martin Scorsese's penchant for stupid camera tricks, much of the desert footage is simply breathtaking, even on small screen. Ultimately, Last Temptation is not much more historically illuminating than Monty Python's Life of Brian, but hey, if it's authenticity you're after, try Gibbon's. --Miles Bethany

Customer Rating:
Summary: A Story of the Christ
Comment: Anything that upsets the fundies anywhere near as much as this movie does must be of some intrinsic value. Shades of grey frighten and anger the narrow-minded.

The gospels make it clear Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. If he was 100% man, wouldn't he have suffered from the very same doubts, fears, failings & insecurities as any man? The Last Temptation of Christ imagines that he did.

The classical understanding of Jesus is that of a man who simply "knows" he is the son of God made in the flesh & is 100% sure of his being who is he is. The gospels are maddening in how none of them discuss Jesus' transition from precocious child to messianic leader. This movie presumes to bridge the gap in imagining Jesus as a carpenter who is tormented by the voice of God calling him to proclaim himself and set himself on the road to suffering, death & sacrifice. He seems almost like a confused teenager at the beginning of the movie.

He is tempted & he has doubts but he stays true to his destiny. As he hangs in agony on the cross, he is tempted to live a normal life of husband & father & in a time of terrible suffering, he gives in. The very fact that he gives in, even for a moment, much less for decades, is the crux of the controversy. I guess those who are offended imagine a Jesus who was too tough to ever give in to indescribable agony & humiliation. You can't have it both ways. You can't say he was 100% man but tougher or braver or smarter or whatever. The whole point of the sacrifice is that God humbled himself to be just an ordinary man who was beaten and spat on and tortured and put to death by those who were low and vulgar and cruel. I think it is a fascinating what-if.

The movie has it's flaws. Some of the acting could be stronger and the music is poorly chosen. There's no such thing as a perfect movie but The Last Temptation of Christ is a superior movie if only because it provokes and challenges any discerning viewer.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Alternative Jesus Tale
Comment: The Last Temptation of Christ is not quite a weird movie. If you're expecting profound blasphemy and other good stuff, this is actually tame like a punk that bought all their outfit at Hot Topic. For one thing, the movie dares show Jesus might have had a different mind than most people, one prone to breakdown that might lead him to imagine he's God. But there's not much point to showing this side since he is also shown performing every miracle. There's no dispute in the film to his superhuman status, which makes the fact that this film was so controversial very funny. Jesus comes across as kind of a spacey neurotic and more than a bit unprepared to be the magical son of God, but still it's faithful to Christianity in message. Much of his fear and doubt are just interpretation of the Bible and common sense take on the character.

I suppose the fact that there's a prostitute doing her job on several men while Jesus waits around to talk to her, is the big edginess to the film. Either that or that Judas is a bit of an expanded and different role. Yet why get offended over such things, they're hardly that shocking in the long run. It's unfortunate that to some degree I think this movie has to be defended against Christian maniacs, and rated a bit higher. Just the fact that they'll toss so many 1 ratings at it like the people stoning others in the movie, gives films like this on obvious need for appreciation. So give it a watch at least once. Oh and enjoy the Brooklyn Jew accents because they'll definitely make you bust a gut laughing a few times.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: Don't be Tempted - Read the Novel First!
Comment: This is a complicated story, so no simple review can adequately critique it. But first, a few facts: the story was NOT written by an anti-christian, nor is it typical of a Hollywood portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth. Nikos Kazantzakis, the author of the novel from which this fictional account is taken, was an Orthodox Christian and devout believer, and Martin Scorsese is Catholic. The story stems from Kazantzakis' desire to pursue and discover the real Christ, as we in the orthodox Christian community understand him. Church doctrine holds that Christ was both fully human and fully divine (which sounds like an oxymoron); like us in all ways but without sin. We traditionally have no problem dealing with the divine side of Christ, but few of us really can face up to the human side - we just can't let Jesus get his hands dirty, or for that matter, even really be a Jew. Such are our prejudices. Even Scorsese falls into this trap by once again choosing a blue-eyed blond to play a middle eastern Jew of the first century who undoubtedly had dark hair, dark brown eyes, and fairly dark skin. But let's not be too picky........

There are several things scripture doesn't tell us about Jesus, and three of them play heavily into this story: first, the gospels don't say anything about how Jesus came to understand his true nature, and I highly doubt that, as Alan Rickman says in the movie "Dogma", an angel sat him down when he was a little boy and explained it all to him. Secondly, how did Jesus respond to the revelation of his true nature? Did he just accept it, which might be hard to believe if he was in fact FULLY human, or did he, as Kazantzakis depicts, struggle mightily with it? St. Luke's gospel describes Jesus as sweating blood as he prayed in the garden the night before he died - but he yields to God's calling. Even for a bible thumper, it ought not to be a stretch to imagine Jesus' struggle. Perhaps examining it in truly human detail is just too painful for us.

Thirdly, the title; what would the 'Last Temptation' be? In the gospel accounts, Satan tempts Jesus in the desert three times, and upon failing, Satan withdraws "to wait for an opportune time" (St. Luke's gospel). However, we get no account of Satan returning to take another shot at him. Kazanzakis has Satan returning, as Jesus hangs suffering, near death, on the cross. Satan pretends to be the Angel of the Lord, and and in an attempt to thwart the crucifiction, fabricates a vision of the path in life Jesus didn't take, but had longed for. He tries to trick Jesus into believing that his work is complete; there is no need to go through with this terrible suffering. He can come down off the cross, and having accomplished God's work for him on earth, he can go home and marry Mary Magdalene (Jesus' childhood sweetheart in this novel), have a family, and enjoy all the earthly blessings of a 'normal' life that everyone else has had. Even though Satan paints well this beautiful vision to tempt Jesus as he hangs there suffering an unspeakably brutal torture, Jesus sees through the ruse, refuses to give in, and with his last ounce of strength shouts "It is accomplished!".

THIS is the story that Kazantzakis wrote, not some cheap, tawdry, Hollywood-ized version of the gospels. Neither does it have the phony titilation of a Dan Brown novel, for the author clearly spells out his meaning at the beginning of this fictional proposition of Jesus's human nature. It is a work of love, by a devout Christian, looking for - and longing for - a deeper understanding of the human nature of Jesus. Having the courage to make this journey, and to take other believers along, is the author's purpose, and for a believer with an open mind and an open heart, it can only result in a deeper and stronger faith.

Martin Scorsese, even though he includes a few distractions in the film, expresses a similar love and longing to discover the Human Jesus. I'll concede DaFoe's blue eyes and blond hair, and even the often-distracting music. If, as some comments have said, DaFoe makes Jesus seem 'indecisive' or 'weak', isn't that exactly how WE might appear to others if we were wrestling with a conflict, and coming to realize that the path we must take isn't the one we want - it defies everything our human nature craves (safety, security, normalcy, our childhood sweetheart, etc.), and eventually will demand suffering and tortuous death? This is the story that Kazantzakis and Scorsese tell.

The movie is a must-see, and a must-own, because if the story is meaningful to you, you'll argue with yourself about it, and want to watch it several times to pick up those details you missed at first because you were busy reacting rather than absorbing. But please, if you really want to appreciate it in the fullest, read the novel first!

Yes, you can find it here at Amazon.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: I Really Don't Know What to Think About This Movie
Comment: This movie is just purely fantasy about what might of, could of, or should of happened back then, but all the while making a mild attempt to be careful not to overly offend Christians. If they got offended then that's their problem. But I guess seeing Christ assembling crosses and then helping to nail Jews to them would be rather offensive to most Christians, or decent people in general. Being an ex-Christian, I understand that the basis of Christianity is a heartfelt belief in the miraculous resurrection back to life after death of a specially sent "god-man" of virgin birth around 2,000 years ago, who is now called "Christ", and one they have put upon a pedestal and worship as a God and whom they say will only accept them into heaven after they beg him for forgiveness of their wicked and lost souls and acknowledge him as their eternal lord and master. And also that they must make incredible irritants of themselves proselytizing the "good news!" like I (and anyone else born in the free world) haven't heard it a hundred-thousand times already. Yep, I can see a fairly interesting movie plot in all of that.

I bought this movie as a birthday present for my husband since he asked specifically for it. He's a Christian and believes in the virgin birth, miracle stuff, and resurrection business but I no longer do. I watched the movie with him and while watching Jesus thrash around on the floor, rolling about in mental torture of some sort I kept thinking, "It's too bad they didn't understand mental illness back then, especially schizophrenia". Even more so when he was all wild-eyed with a crazed look telling Judas that God was talking to him.

But whether you believe the Christian story or not, it's a fairly entertaining movie although I really wished William Defoe had not played the part of Christ. Even Harvey Keitel was weird as Judas. Defoe just looked freaky with his huge gapped teeth and humongous mouth. I suppose Jesus could have been even freakier looking but who knows......he may have not even existed. But that's beside the point. And the nitty-gritty of life back then was depicted as dry, dirty, ragged, rough, windy and with very little naturally occurring water (lakes, rivers, ponds, pools or even puddles) anywhere. John the Baptist and his band of zealots were mucking about in a trickle of a stream. It was similar to a spaghetti western in realism. Maybe it was too dirty. You could almost smell the stink in the air and I felt like swatting at flies some of the time.

Christians can be happy that the movie ended in the traditional way with him being back, and suffering on the cross with the assumption that he will certainly be resurrected. My heart did hurt for him when he was in the Garden of Gethsemene praying so hard and begging God to stop it all - that he didn't want to do it. William Defoe did act out that scene very well - I felt compassion for the Jesus character. Non-Christians can enjoy the movie too, but they may be a bit disappointed since he is fulfilling the Christian role given him. The dialogue sounded rather stilted and forced - did they really talk like that back then? So Bible-ish, and it wasn't even written then.

I did like how sincere the devil seemed to be in the form of the angel child who helped Jesus down from his cross. That was the only character who seemed real and believable. But when his/her sham was revealed she/he turned into a big ole flaming geyser of sorts, said some devil junk and disappeared - I guess back to hell or maybe the White House, who knows, but it was a bit old and overdone. And having Mary Magdalene suddenly drop dead when she was very happy and apparently healthy and ready to give birth any day made no sense. The entire story was a little hard for me to swallow, but hubby really enjoyed it. But we couldn't discuss it afterwards. Although he is fairly modern thinking about his religion and can watch this movie unaffected negatively by it, he still rails every time I say something the least bit critical, or that which might shed a tiny shadow of doubt concerning his faith in Christianity.

It's not worth $29.99 and that price floored me when I saw it. But I needed it soon, and Amazon usually sends stuff fairly fast. The commentaries and other stuff are sort of interesting, but not enough to keep you awake if you watch it during the late evening hours.

---

Customer Rating:
Summary: FORGET THIS ONE! SEE #1: "PASSION OF THE CHRIST," BY MEL GIBSON OR "JESUS OF NAZARETH." SCORSESES IS HORRIBLY MOCKING & PROFANE
Comment: This movie is not about love for Christ, but a mocking of Christ. It's about an anti-Christian hollywood trying, desperately, to counter Mel Gibson's mega-epic: 'The Passion of the Christ," which has grossed nearly 2 Billion to this day. Gibson's "Passion," is and continues to be the most viewed and bought movie, ever, that's ever in the history of Cinema. however, the media/choir play it down and constantly edit out any mention of "The Passion of the Christ." The 'Passion of the Christ," continues to sell like lightening to this day. What does that say?: Truth and decency cannot be censored. See the movie for yourself, to understand its inordinately powerful and inspirational message - like no other film or film about Jesus Christ ever! You won't complain about anything, anymore. "The Passion of the Christ,' is a priceless life changing event - don't miss it. Forget scorsese's amusing the choir of hollywood and media. Very, very dissapointing and upsetting.

---